Bias in the Workplace:
Consistent Evidence of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity
Discrimination
June 2007
M.V. Lee Badgett
Holning Lau
Brad Sears
Deborah Ho
Executive Summary
Over the last ten years, many researchers have conducted studies to find out whether lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (“LGBT”) people face sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. These studies
include surveys of LGBT individuals’ workplace experiences, wage comparisons between LGB and heterosexual
persons, analyses of discrimination complaints filed with administrative agencies, and testing studies and
controlled experiments. This report summarizes findings from these studies.
When surveyed, 16% to 68% of LGBT people report experiencing employment discrimination.
Studies conducted from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s revealed that 16% to 68% of LGB respondents reported
experiencing employment discrimination at some point in their lives. Since the mid-1990s, an additional fifteen
studies found that 15% to 43% of LGB
respondents experienced discrimination in the 45
41
workplace.
40
35
When asked more specific questions about the
30
28
type
of
discrimination
experienced,
LGB
25
respondents reported the following experiences
20
17
19
that were related to their sexual orientation: 8%15
17% were fired or denied employment, 10%-28%
10
10
were denied a promotion or given negative 10
8
7
5
performance
evaluations,
7%-41%
were
verbally/physically abused or had their workplace
0
vandalized, and 10%-19% reported receiving
fired/hired promotion/ harassment/ unequal pay/
unequal pay or benefits.
evaluation abuse/vandal
benefits
Fifteen to 57% of transgender people also report experiencing employment discrimination.
When transgender individuals were surveyed separately, they reported similar or higher levels of employment
discrimination. In six studies conducted between 1996 and 2006, 20% to 57% of transgender respondents
reported having experienced employment discrimination at some point in their life. More specifically, 13%56% were fired, 13%-47% were denied employment, 22%-31% were harassed, and 19% were denied a
promotion based on their gender identity.
When surveyed, many heterosexual
discrimination in the workplace.
co-workers
report
witnessing
sexual
orientation
A small number of researchers have also asked heterosexuals whether they have witnessed discrimination
against their LGB peers. These studies revealed that 12% to 30% of respondents in certain occupations, such
as the legal profession, have witnessed antigay discrimination in employment.
In states that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, LGB people file complaints of
employment discrimination at similar rates to women and racial minorities.
Individual complaints of discrimination filed with government agencies provide another measure of perceived
discrimination. The General Accounting Office (or “GAO”, now known as the Government Accountability Office)
collected the number of complaints filed in states that outlaw sexual orientation discrimination and found that
1% of all discrimination complaints related to sexual orientation. However, comparisons of data from ten
states show that the rate of sexual orientation discrimination complaints per GLB person is 3 per 10,000, which
is roughly equivalent to gender-based discrimination complaints.
Gender v. Sexual Orientation
Raw Data
Population-Adjusted Data
Gay men earn 10% to 32% less than similarly qualified heterosexual men.
A wage or income gap between LGB people and heterosexual people with the same job and personal
characteristics provides another indicator of sexual orientation discrimination. A growing number of studies
using data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (“NHSLS”), the General Social Survey (“GSS”), the
United States Census, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (“NHANES III”) show that gay
men earn 10% to 32% less than otherwise similar heterosexual men. The findings for lesbians, however, are
less clear. In some studies they earn more than heterosexual women but less than heterosexual or gay men.
Transgender people report high rates of unemployment and very low earnings.
While no detailed wage and income analyses of the transgender population have been conducted to date,
convenience samples of the transgender population find that 6%-60% of respondents report being
unemployed, and 22-64% of the employed population earns less than $25,000 per year.
Controlled experiments reveal sexual orientation discrimination in workplace settings.
In controlled experiments, researchers manufacture scenarios that allow comparisons of the treatment of LGB
people with treatment of heterosexuals. Seven out of eight studies using controlled experiments related to
employment and public accommodation find evidence of sexual orientation discrimination.
Despite the variations in methodology, context, and time period in the studies reviewed in this
report, our review of the evidence demonstrates one disturbing and consistent pattern: sexual
orientation-based and gender identity discrimination is a common occurrence in many
workplaces across the country.
Table of Contents
Self-Reported Experiences of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Employment
Discrimination ........................................................................................................ 2
Surveys Measuring Sexual Orientation Discrimination ............................................. 2
Literature Reviews............................................................................................ 2
National Random Samples ................................................................................ 3
Other National Samples .................................................................................... 3
Recent Convenience Samples of Specific Geographic Areas.................................. 3
Surveys of Heterosexual Co-Workers ................................................................. 4
Methods and Limitations of Surveys of LGB People.............................................. 4
Surveys Measuring Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Transgender
Status................................................................................................................. 7
Convenience Samples ....................................................................................... 7
Methodology and Limitations of Surveys of Transgender People ........................... 9
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................ 9
Administrative Complaints Filed About Discrimination............................................... 11
Wage Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination ................................................ 12
Background on Data and Methodology ................................................................ 12
Patterns in the Findings ..................................................................................... 12
Measuring the Effects of Antidiscrimination Laws: A Wage-Based Approach............ 16
Wages of Transgender People ............................................................................ 16
Controlled Experiments ......................................................................................... 18
Background on Data and Methodology ................................................................ 18
Studies of Employment ...................................................................................... 18
Studies of Public Accommodations ...................................................................... 19
Issues Related to Interpretation of Results .......................................................... 20
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 21
References ........................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... 27
About the Authors................................................................................................. 27
About the Institute................................................................................................ 27
Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination
Over the last ten years, academic researchers in
economics, sociology, psychology, and other social
sciences have conducted research to find out
whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(“LGBT”) people face employment discrimination.
Government and community organizations have
also conducted such research. With increasing
frequency, policymakers at the federal, state, and
local level are considering the rates of employment
discrimination as they consider laws that would
ban employment discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity. In this report we
summarize the findings of research about
employment discrimination against LGBT people
from four different kinds of studies.
Surveys of LGBT people’s experiences with
workplace discrimination
These studies routinely show that considerable
numbers of LGBT people believe they have been
discriminated against in the workplace. These
studies also show that heterosexuals perceive
discrimination against their LGB peers. Because
these studies tend to focus on particular
occupations, population groups, or geographic
areas, the rates of perceived discrimination vary
considerably across their findings.
Analyses of employment discrimination
complaints filed with government agencies
Thus far, there has been one published study on
the number of sexual orientation discrimination
complaints filed with government agencies.
Although the raw number of complaints is small,
the rate of complaints per 10,000 LGB people is
comparable to the rate of sex discrimination
complaints per 10,000 women.
Analyses of wage differentials between LGBT
and heterosexual persons
Employment discrimination often translates into
lower earnings. Wage analyses consistently show
that gay men earn 10% to 32% less than
heterosexual men.
The findings on lesbians’
earnings are less consistent. While less data is
available about the incomes of transgender people
in comparison with non-transgender people, a
number of surveys have found high unemployment
rates and low income levels for transgender
people.
Controlled experiments
A new and expanding line of research involves
experiments that control conditions to test whether
LGB people experience differences in treatment
when compared with identical heterosexual people.
These studies find that LGB and heterosexual
persons are subject to disparate treatment.
The remainder of this report describes the studies’
methods and findings. The methodologies used
and contexts studied vary considerably and limit
our ability to generalize findings to all locations,
occupations, or economic contexts.
Also, the
limitations of the methods mean that we cannot
say how likely a LGBT person would be to
experience employment discrimination. Despite
these caveats, the review does demonstrate a
consistent pattern: there is ample evidence that
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity
discrimination against LGBT people occurs in many
workplaces across the country.
1
Self-Reported Experiences of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity Employment Discrimination
Surveys Measuring Sexual Orientation
Discrimination
One way that researchers have assessed
discrimination is by asking LGB people directly
whether they believe they have experienced
discrimination. These studies routinely show that
many LGB individuals believe that they have
experienced employment discrimination. Tables 1
and 2 present details of the studies.
Literature Reviews
Five academic reviews of such studies that were
published between 1992 and 1999 found
substantial evidence of discrimination.
These
reviews, examining over 35 studies, found that
16% to 68% of LGB respondents reported
experiencing discrimination in the workplace (see
Table 1). Since these literature reviews were
published, an additional fifteen surveys have been
conducted that report similar findings.
Table 1: Literature reviews examining studies published between 1992 and 1999
Study
Year(s)
Data
Collected
Population
Method
% Reporting
Discrimination
Ever (unless
otherwise
noted)
Specific Types of
Discrimination
Experienced
8-19% fired
5-24% denied
employment
5-33% denied a
promotion
3-14% bad job rating or
evaluation
Badgett
et al.
(1992)
1992
Review of 1 national survey
and 20 city and state surveys
of LGB people (n of 21
surveys = 11,984 )
Literature
Review
16-44%
Badgett
(1997)
1997
Literature
Review
27-68%
Croteau
(1996)
1996
Literature
Review
25-66%
Durkin
(1998)
1998
Literature
Review
23-40%
Fox,
Sarah D.
(1999)
1999
Review of 3 city surveys and
6 surveys of various
professional groups of LGB
people (n of 9 surveys =
8,221)
Review of 9 published studies
on work experiences of LGB
people, with 3 studies
reporting experiences of
discrimination
(n of 3 surveys = 626)
Review of 11 studies of
sexual orientation bias in the
legal profession, 2 reporting
experiences of discrimination
(n of 2 surveys = 293)
Review of 2 studies on sexual
orientation employment
discrimination
(n of 2 surveys = 378)
Literature
Review
41-58%
2
National Random Samples
Three recent surveys are based on national
probability samples (or “random” samples) of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
•
•
In 2000, the Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation (2001) surveyed a random
sample of 405 LGB people in 15 large
metropolitan areas and found that 18% of
the respondents reported experiencing
discrimination when applying for a job or
keeping a job.
• Another study analyzed data from the 1995
National Survey of Midlife Development, a
nationally representative sample of adults
aged 25 to 74 years old, and revealed that
LGB respondents reported the following
types
of
“discrimination”: 8%
Fifteen recent
reported being fired,
studies found that
13% being denied
15% to 43% of
employment,
and
LGB respondents
11% being denied a
experienced
promotion
(Vickie
Mays and Susan
workplace
Cochran
2001).
discrimination.
While the survey did
not
ask
LGB
respondents
whether
each
type
of
employment discrimination was related to
their sexual orientation, 43% of LGB
respondents said that some discrimination
they experienced was due to their sexual
orientation (Mays and Cochran 2001).
• Another recent survey of a random sample
found that 10% of LGB people (16% of
lesbians and gay men) reported being fired
or denied a job because of their sexual
orientation (Gregory Herek, 2007).
workplace over the past five years (Lambda
Legal and Deloitte 2006).
Similar rates of discrimination were
documented in a survey by Out & Equal in
2002, which found that 41% of participants
had experienced discrimination in the
workplace (2002).
Recent Surveys of Specific Areas
Eight other studies of sexual orientation
discrimination surveyed narrower subgroups of the
LGB population focusing on people in a particular
geographic area.
These studies recruit
“convenience” samples, or samples of LGB people
who are easy to locate and willing to return a
survey. These survey respondents may not be
representative of the larger population of LGB
people. These studies also show experiences of
perceived employment discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation are common. 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
30% of LGBT people in Pennsylvania
reported discrimination.
36% of New Yorkers reported employment
discrimination during the five years prior to
the 2001 survey.
11.2% of GB men in three southwestern
cities reported experiencing employment,
housing or insurance discrimination in the
six months prior to the survey.
15% of GB Latino men in Los Angeles, New
York City, and Miami reported experiencing
employment discrimination.
In a survey of LGB residents of Topeka,
Kansas, 15%-41% reported employment
discrimination and on-the-job harassment.
27% of the 195 northern Floridians surveyed
reported
experiencing
employment
discrimination.
Other National Samples
Two other national studies of non-random samples
also found that self-reported experiences of
discrimination were common and that respondents
reported facing a variety of discrimination in the
employment context.
•
•
The most recent survey, conducted in 2006,
found that 7% of the 662 LGB respondents
had reported experiencing job discrimination
at some point in their lives.
A survey conducted at the end of 2005,
found that 39% of the 1,205 LGBT
respondents have experienced some level of
harassment or discrimination in their
1
Two other surveys also indicate high levels of
discrimination against LGBT people of color, although
neither survey defined discrimination to be limited to,
or even include, employment discrimination. In 2005
and 2007, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s
Policy Institute released two reports on Asian Pacific
American and Islander LGBT individuals showing that
75%-82% of the respondents from the two surveys
reported experience with sexual orientation
discrimination or prejudice of some kind (Alain Dang
& Mandy Hu 2005; Alain Dang & Cabrini Vianney
2007). Another survey of participants from nine Black
Pride events in 2000 by the Policy Institute found that
42% of black LGBT respondents reported having
experienced discrimination or prejudice of some kind.
(Battle et al. 2002).
3
•
•
•
•
•
30% of LGB people from fourteen of the
sixteen counties across Maine reported
experiencing discrimination in employment.
43% of Washington State Pride event
attendees
reported
experiencing
employment discrimination.
21% of the LGB attorneys in Minnesota law
firms reported being denied employment,
equal pay, equal benefits, a promotion, or
another employment opportunity.
LGBT members of the California State Bar
reported that 26% had been denied a
promotion, 15% received unequal pay, and
19% received poor work assignments.
LG employees of the New Jersey Supreme
Court reported that 17% were denied
employment, 29% were teased or harassed,
and
21%
were
given
poor
work
assignments.
Surveys of Heterosexual Co-Workers
A small number of researchers have asked
heterosexuals whether they have witnessed
discrimination against their LGB peers. These
studies have been limited to particular occupations,
mainly the legal profession.
•
•
•
•
•
In a survey of heterosexual attorneys in
Minnesota law firms, 23% believe that LGBT
attorneys were treated differently, with an
additional 32% stating that they were not
certain.
New Jersey Court system employees
reported
seeing
sexual
orientation
discrimination: 7% reporting witnessing
discrimination in hiring, 10% witnessed
verbal abuse or harassment of LGBT
coworkers, and 6% reported witnessing
discrimination in the distribution of work
assignments.
30% of the judges and attorneys surveyed
in Arizona believe that lesbians and gays
were discriminated against in the legal
profession.
12% to 14% of heterosexual political
scientists reported witnessing antigay
discrimination in academic employment
decisions, such as hiring and tenure
decisions.
In Los Angeles, 24% of female heterosexual
lawyers and 17% of male heterosexual
reported either having experienced
witnessed anti-gay discrimination.
or
Methods and Limitations of Surveys
Although these studies provide a useful snapshot
of LGB individuals’ perceptions, they have certain
limitations. As already noted, the samples used for
most studies were not representative of the larger
LGB population.
Many of these studies only
surveyed individuals in a particular geographic
region, occupation, or population group. Almost all
were convenience samples, as opposed to random
or probability samples. Individuals who have been
subject to sexual orientation discrimination may
have been more likely to participate in such
surveys, skewing the rate of discrimination
reported. Therefore, we cannot necessarily apply
these findings to all LGB people.
Two other limitations related to these studies’
reliance on perceptions of discrimination are worth
noting. First, people’s perceptions may not be
accurate measures of actual discrimination. For
example, individuals may misperceive employers’
motivations behind hiring and promotion decisions,
ascribing discriminatory motives to employers
when
none
existed.
Alternatively, employers may
Heterosexual
conceal their discriminatory
co-workers report
motives so well that LGB
people
perceive
less
witnessing
discrimination than actually
discrimination
exists.
against their LGB
peers
Second, many of these
studies had vague definitions
of “discrimination” and some did not define the
term at all. In addition, the questions asking about
employment discrimination were worded differently
in each of the surveys. “Discrimination” included
everything from denials of promotions to being
subjected to “hard stares” because of one’s sexual
orientation (Martin P. Levine and Robin Leonard
1984; James M. Croteau and Julianne S. Lark
1995).
The variations in definitions and the
wording of questions may also explain why the
studies found varying levels of perceived
discrimination.
4
Table 2: Results of surveys measuring employment discrimination against LGB people on the basis of sexual orientation since 1999
Study
Year(s)
Data
Collected
Population
Method
% Reporting
Discrimination Ever
(unless otherwise noted)
Specific Types of Discrimination Experienced
15% fired
16% denied employment
11% denied a promotion
18% overlooked for additional responsibilities
24% teased or harassed
35% received harassing e-mails, letters, or faxes
41% verbal or physical abuse
16% vandalized workplace
Colvin R. (2004)
2003-2004
LGB people in
Topeka, Kansas
(n = 121)
Convenience
Sample
NA
Diaz et al. (2001)
1998-1999
GB Latino Men in
New York, Miami,
and Los Angeles
(n = 912)
LGB people in New
York State
(n = 1,891)
Convenience
Sample
15%
Convenience
Sample
36%
experienced discrimination in
the past 5 years
LG people in
Pennsylvania
(n = 3,014)
Convenience
Sample
30%
Empire State
Pride Survey
(2001)
Gross et al.
(2000)
2001
1999-2000
Henry J. Kaiser
(2001)
2000
LGB people in 15
metro areas in U.S.
(n = 405)
Random Sample
18%
applying for and/or keeping a
job
Herek (2007)
2006
LGB people in U.S.
(n = 662)
Random Sample
10% experienced job
discrimination once in their life
1996-1997
GB Men aged 18 to
27 in Phoenix, AZ,
Albuquerque, NM
and Austin, TX
(n = 1,248 )
LGB people in
Gainesville/
Alachua County
Florida (n = 195)
Convenience
Sample
11.2%
experienced employment,
housing, or insurance
discrimination in a 6 month
period
27%
LGBT people
nationally
(n = 1,205)
Convenience
Sample
Huebner et al.
(2004)
Karp, B. and
Human Rights
Council of North
Central Florida
(1997)
Lambda Legal &
Deloitte (2006)
1997
2005
Convenience
Sample
39% experienced
discrimination/harassment in
the past five years
8% fired
12% denied promotion
10% negative performance evaluation
27% verbally harassed
7% physically harassed
9% fired
15% denied employment
20% denied a promotion
16% bad job rating or evaluation
19% denied a promotion
5
Study
Year(s)
Data
Collected
Population
Method
% Reporting
Discrimination Ever
(unless otherwise noted)
Specific Types of Discrimination Experienced
8% fired
13% denied employment
11% denied a promotion
17% denied employment
28% denied a promotion
21% negative performance evaluation
21% not given good work assignments
29% teased or harassed
10% received unequal pay
9% fired
8% pressured to quit
12% denied a promotion
23% teased or harassed
22% experienced other forms of discrimination
Mays et al.
(2001)
1995
LGB people
nationally (n = 73)
Random Sample
43%
New Jersey
Supreme Court
(2001)
2000
LG New Jersey
Court employees
(n = 42)
Convenience
Sample
NA
Out & Equal
Advocates.
Harris
Interactive &
Witeck Combs
(2002)
Seattle Office of
Civil Rights
(2006)
State Bar of
California (2006)
2002
LGBT people
nationally
(n = 110)
Convenience
Sample
41%
2006
LGBT people in
Washington
(n = 54)
LGBT California
State Bar members
(n = 155)
Convenience
Sample
43%
Convenience
Sample
NA
Task Force on
Diversity in the
Profession of
the Minnesota
State Bar
Association
(2006)
Wessler (2005)
2005-2006
LGB attorneys in
Minnesota (n = 51)
Convenience
Sample
22%
LGBT people in
Maine (n = 90)
Convenience
Sample
30%
2005
2005
26% denied a promotion
19% not given good work assignments
15% received unequal pay
19% received unequal benefits
6
Surveys Measuring Discrimination on
the Basis of Gender Identity or
Transgender Status
Since 1996, a number of studies have found that
large percentages of transgender persons report
experiencing employment discrimination on the
basis of their gender identity or transgender
status. Details of these studies are presented in
Table 3.
Convenience Samples
All of the surveys measuring employment
discrimination against transgender people relied
upon convenience samples. Only one was national
in scope. The other studies focused on a particular
geographic area or population group. Most were
based on the transgender population in San
Francisco. Despite these limitations, the studies
consistently found that between 15% and 57% of
transgender
people
report
experiencing
employment discrimination on the basis of
transgender status or gender identity.
•
•
•
•
•
Nationally, 37% reported experiencing
employment discrimination.
25% of transsexuals from Northern
California had difficulties getting a job.
A study of 244 transsexuals in Los Angeles
County found that 28% reported being fired
based on their gender identity and 47%
reported difficulty in finding a job.
In a study of 248 transgender people of
color in Washington, D.C., 15% reported
losing a job because of their transgender
status.
37-42% of gender variant persons in Illinois
reported experiencing some type of
employment discrimination.
•
•
A
study
of
male-to-female
(MTF)
transgender people of color in San Francisco
found that 39% reported losing a job or a
career opportunity because of their gender
identity.
20% of transgender persons in Virginia
reported employment discrimination, with
13% fired, 20% denied employment and
31% harassed at work.
The most recent survey of transgender individuals
was conducted in 2006 by the San Francisco Bay
Guardian and the Transgender Law Center (San
Francisco Bay Guardian and Transgender Law
Center 2006). The survey was specifically focused
on employment issues, using a
very broad definition of being
15% to 57% of
transgender, and sought to
transgender
recruit a broad cross-section of
people report
San
Francisco’s
transgender
experiencing
population. The study found that
employment
57%
of
the
transgender
discrimination
respondents
surveyed
had
experienced
employment
discrimination on the basis of their transgender
status or gender identity. More specifically, of
those surveyed, 18% reported being fired, 40%
being denied employment, 19% being denied a
promotion, and 22% being verbally harassed. In
addition, 24% reported being sexually harassed,
14% lacked access to appropriate restrooms, 23%
reported persistent use of their old name and/or
pronoun, and 12% faced persistent questions
about surgery. In other words, this survey found
ample evidence of many forms of discrimination in
what should be one of the most tolerant cities for
transgender people in the United States.
7
Table 3: Results of surveys measuring employment discrimination against transgender people on the basis of transgender
status or gender identity
Study
Year(s) Data
Collected
Population
Method
% Reporting Discrimination Ever
(unless otherwise noted)
Clements K.,
et al. (1999)
1997
MTFs in San Francisco (n = 392)
46%
report losing a job or difficulty in
getting a job
Clements K,
et al. (1999)
1997
FTMs in San Francisco (n = 123)
57%
report losing a job, difficulty getting a
job or job discrimination
Lombardi et
al. (2001)
1996-1997
Transgender people in the U.S.
(n = 402)
37%
Reback et al.
(2001)
1998-1999
MTF Transsexuals in Los Angeles
County (n = 244)
NA
Sykes (1999)
1998
Transsexuals in Northern California
(n = 232)
25%
difficulties with getting a job because of
gender issues
Minter and
Daley (2003)
2002
Transgender people in San Francisco
(n = 155)
49%
Plotner et al.
(2002)
1995-2001
Transgender people in Illinois
(n = 108)
37-42%
56% fired
13% denied employment
31% harassed
San Francisco
Bay Guardian
and
Transgender
Law Center
(2006)
2006
Transgender people in San Francisco
(n = 194)
57%
18% fired
40% denied employment
19% denied a promotion
22% verbally harassed
24% sexual harassed
11% health coverage issues
14% appropriate restroom access
23% use of old name/pronoun
12% questions about surgery
4% other
Sugano et al.
(2006)
2000-2001
Transsexual Women (MTF) of Color
in San Francisco (n = 327)
39%
report loss of job or career opportunity
Xavier et al.
(2000 & 2005)
1999-2000
Transgender People of Color in
Washington, D.C. (n = 248)
NA
Xavier et al.
(2007)
2005-2006
Transgender People in Virginia (N =
350)
20%
29% fired
47% difficulty getting job
15% fired
(another 8% “unsure” if job lost due to
discrimination)
13% fired
20% denied employment
31% harassed
8
Methodology and Limitations of Surveys of
Transgender People
The surveys of transgender people summarized in
Table 3 have many of the same limitations as the
surveys summarizing the LGB population. For
example, they were all based on convenience
samples and are generally limited to surveying one
city, San Francisco. In fact, only one was a
national in scope. Although some surveys varied in
how they defined discrimination, many of these
surveys were based upon each other and
deliberately used the same definition of
discrimination. Thus, there may in fact be greater
consistency among these surveys results than in
others reviewed by this study.
These surveys also have some additional
limitations. Perhaps the most notable one is the
variance of the definition of the transgender
population among the surveys.
Some of the
studies focused only on MTFs (male-to-female) or
only on FTMs (female-to-male).
Some only
included those who self-identity as transsexuals;
one only included pre-operative and post-operative
transsexuals, while others included anyone who is
visibly “gender variant,” including those who
identify as cross-dressers, drag queens, drag kings,
effeminate males and gender queers.
Some
studies explicitly excluded those who identify in
these groups from their definition of transgender.
Glossary of Terms
Table 3 and the studies it summarizes use a variety of terms to describe all or parts of the transgender community. These terms
represent real differences in how the researchers defined the populations which they surveyed. Below is a short glossary of
these terms.
Transgender: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity, expression, or behavior is different from that typically
associated with their assigned sex at birth, including but not limited to transsexuals, cross-dressers, androgynous people,
genderqueers, and gender non-conforming people.
Gender Identity: An individual’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else. Since gender identity is internal,
one’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.
Transsexual: A term for people whose gender identity is different from their assigned sex at birth. Often, but not always,
transsexual people alter their bodies through hormones or surgery in order to make it match their gender identity.
Cross-dresser: A term for people who dress in clothing traditionally or stereotypically worn by the other sex, but who generally
have no intent to live full-time as the other gender.
Genderqueer: A term used by some individuals who identify as neither entirely male nor entirely female. Genderqueer is an
identity more common among young people.
Gender non-conforming/gender variant: A term for individuals whose gender expression is different from the societal
expectations based on their assigned sex at birth.
FTM: A person who has transitioned from “female-to-male,” meaning a person who was assigned female at birth, but now
identifies and lives as a male.
MTF: A person who has transitioned from “male-to-female,” meaning a person who was assigned male at birth, but now
identifies and lives as a female
Drag Queen: Generally used to refer to men who dress as women (often celebrity women) for the purpose of entertaining
others at bars, clubs, or other events.
Drag King: Used to refer to women who dress as men for the purpose of entertaining others at bars, clubs, or other events.
These definitions are influenced by a variety of sources. See Letellier, Patrick. 2003. “Beyond He and She: A Transgender News
Profile.” The Good Times; Intersex Society of North America, www.isna.org; The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,
www.glaad.org; The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, www.glsen.org; and Currah, Paisley and Shannon Minter.
2000. Transgender Equality: A Handbook for Activists and Policymakers. San Francisco: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Policy Institute and National Center for Lesbian Rights.
9
Only three of these surveys focused specifically on
employment discrimination or violence and
discrimination against transgender people. Most
are focused on HIV prevention, prevalence, and
risk behaviors. Some even required participants to
take an HIV-test. Others are more generally
focused on the health and social service needs of
the transgender population. As a result, many of
these surveys deliberately over-represent clients of
AIDS service organizations, other social services
organizations, low income people, and commercial
sex workers.
Finally, many of the samples may over-represent
transgender people of color, although this is
difficult to assess with the extremely limited
information available about the demographics of
the transgender population. Many of the studies
had samples with high percentages of AfricanAmerican and Latino/a respondents, and some
were designed to focus on people of color. On the
other hand, two of the surveys noted that they
underrepresented people of color.
Another difference between the transgender
studies in Table 3 and the LGB surveys
summarized in Table 2 is that over half of the
transgender studies were based on face-to-face
interviews, and all of the LGB studies were based
on written questionnaires. It is difficult to assess
the impact of the interview method on the
responses collected. On the one hand, interviews
might have resulted in less accurate information
about employment discrimination if respondents
were reluctant to admit experiences of
discrimination. On the other hand, given that most
of the surveys were also asking highly personal
questions, such as about HIV-status, risky sexual
behaviors, drug use, and suicide, respondents
might have been desensitized to reporting stressful
information such as experiences of discrimination
and were, therefore, more likely to report
discrimination they have experienced.
However, what was most notable about the entire
set of transgender studies was the commitment of
researchers to having transgender people included
in every phase of their research—design of the
survey instrument, recruitment, and interviewing.
Almost all of the studies based on interviews used
transgender people to conduct all or most of the
interviews.
10
Administrative Complaints Filed About Discrimination
Surveys are not the only one way to study people’s
perception of discrimination. In those states that
already prohibit sexual orientation discrimination,
individuals can file complaints of discrimination,
which provide a different way of measuring
perceived discrimination. Reports by the General
Accounting
Office
(now
the
Government
Accountability Office) have summarized the
number of complaints filed in states that outlaw
sexual orientation discrimination (James Rebbe,
Veronica Sandidge, and Richard Burkard 2002;
Stefanie Weldon and Dayna K. Shah 2000; Author
Unknown 1997).
In a report published in 2002, Rubenstein
examined legal complaints filed in states that had
outlawed sexual orientation discrimination. The
report examined data from ten state-level agencies
that recorded complaints regarding sexual
orientation
discrimination
in
employment.
Rubenstein found that the raw number of
complaints for each state was small. For example,
in 1995, only 23 people in Connecticut filed
complaints
alleging
sexual
orientation
discrimination (William Rubenstein 2002).
Although the actual number of sexual orientation
discrimination complaints per gay person was
small, they were roughly equivalent to the number
of sex-based discrimination complaints per woman.
Raw Data
The average for the ten states was three
complaints per 10,000 LGB people under the
assumption that 5% of the U.S. population is LGB,
compared with nine gender-related complaints per
10,000 women and eight race-related complaints
per 10,000 people of color (Rubenstein 2002).
Rubenstein’s research showed that complaint rates
of sexual orientation discrimination were similar to
complaints of sex or race discrimination. Because
the complaints studied were not necessarily
substantiated through adjudication, though,
Rubenstein’s
study—like
the
survey-based
studies—only measured perceived discrimination.
No similar study has been conducted for the states
that
currently
prohibit
gender
identity
discrimination. However, the most recent survey
of transgender people in San Francisco found that
although 57% of respondents had experienced
employment discrimination on the basis of gender
identity, only 12% had filed a complaint about the
discrimination they experienced, and of those, only
3% had filed their complaint with an independent
agency having the authority to enforce California’s
anti-discrimination law (Bay Guardian and TLC
2006).
Population-Adjusted Data
11
Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Wage Gaps
Background
Economists and sociologists have used survey data
on wages and sexual orientation to look for
associations between LGB status and earnings, just
as they have studied race and sex discrimination. 2
The basic idea is that people who have the same
job and personal characteristics should, on
average, be paid the same wage. Applying this
theory, if no discrimination exists, members of two
different social groups who have the same
characteristics should have the same average pay.
If, after controlling for productive characteristics
(education, occupation, location, experience,
training,
etc.)
and
other
LGB people file
relevant social characteristics
(marital status, sex, race),
complaints of
members of one group earn
employment
less than members of the other
discrimination at
group, then most economists
similar rates to
and sociologists would conclude
women and racial
that
employers
are
minorities
discriminating against the lower
earning group. In addition to
providing another perspective on the existence of
discrimination, these studies also allow researchers
to see whether discrimination translates into
income loss and economic hardship.
Wage analyses are important but difficult to
conduct because only a few of the studies that
survey random population samples ask questions
related to sexual orientation. Those that include
questions on income and some measure of sexual
orientation include the National Health and Social
Life Survey (“NHSLS”), the General Social Survey
(“GSS”), the United States Census, and the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(“NHANES III”).
Conducted by the National Opinion Research
Center at the University of Chicago, the NHSLS
questioned participants in 1993 about their sexual
attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity.
2
This section relies on the analysis in M. V. Lee
Badgett’s “Discrimination Based on Sexual
Orientation: A Review of the Literature in Economics
and Beyond,” in M. V. Lee Badgett and Jefferson
Frank, eds. Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An
International Perspective. London: Routledge.
The main drawback of NHSLS is its relatively small
sample size of 3,432 (Edward O. Laumann et al.
1994).
Therefore, many studies combine the
NHSLS with the GSS, also conducted by the
National Opinion Research Center has conducted
surveys regularly over the past two decades to
assess the general public’s social and political
attitudes. In the late 1980’s, the GSS began
asking both men and women how many male and
female sex partners they have had since the age of
18, and for a sub-sample, the sex of their partners
in the last five years and in the past year.
One drawback of both the GSS and NHANES III is
that the surveys only ask questions on sexual
behavior, not sexual identity.
Using sexual
behavior data poses a challenge for interpretation:
how many same-sex partners should be required
before researchers categorize an individual as gay
or lesbian?
Researchers have taken different
approaches to this question. For example, Badgett
put individuals in the LGB category if they listed at
least as many same-sex partners and opposite-sex
partners since the age of 18 (M.V. Lee Badgett
1995; M.V. Lee Badgett 2001). Dan Black et al.
(2003) ran three sets of analyses, defining LGB
differently each time. They defined LGB based on
(1) sexual behavior since age 18, (2) sexual
behavior in the past year, and (3) sexual behavior
in the last five years (Dan Black et al. 2003).
The Census provides the largest dataset for
analyses of wages. In both the 1990 and 2000
Censuses, individuals had the option of indicating
that they lived with a same-sex “unmarried
partner.” Researchers use that cohabitation status
as a proxy for LGB sexual orientation.
Patterns in the Findings
The studies of sexual orientation’s impact on
wages reveal different patterns for gay men and
for lesbians, as summarized in Table 4. The
studies support the conclusion that sexual
orientation discrimination lowers the wages of gay
men. For lesbians, the findings are less clear,
since the differential between lesbian and
heterosexual women has varied across studies.
Some explanations for that variance are considered
below. One finding regarding lesbians is clear:
lesbians consistently earn less than men. It seems
12
that gender discrimination has a greater impact on
lesbians’
wages
than
sexual
orientation
discrimination.
Nine studies using different datasets consistently
show that gay and bisexual men earned 10% to
32% less than heterosexual men (Sylvia A.
Allegretto and Michelle M. Arthur 2001; Badgett
1995; Badgett 2001; Nathan Berg and Donald Lien
2002; Black et al. 2000; Black et al. 2003; John M.
Blandford 2003; Suzanne Heller Clain and Karen
Leppel 2001; Marieka M. Klawitter and Victor Flatt
1998). Accounting for differences in occupations
between gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men
does not influence the wage gap much in either
direction. 3
However, a recent study of California data finds a
somewhat different pattern. This study finds that
gay men in California earn 2% to 3% less than
heterosexual men (a statistically insignificant
difference), and bisexual men
earn 10% to 15% less than
Gay men earn 10%
heterosexual men (Christopher
to 32% less than
Carpenter 2005).
However,
similarly
qualified
these findings seem to be
heterosexual
men
unique to California, as a
subsequent study conducted by
the same author using NHANES III data, which like
the GSS data ask questions about sexual behavior,
found a 23%-30% income disadvantage for men
who engage in same-sex sexual behavior
(Carpenter 2007).
Table 4: Employment and Income Data for Gay Men from Wage Analyses Studies
Survey
Data Source
Wage Differential
LGB Definition
Allegretto &
Arthur (2001)
1990 U.S. Census (5%
PUMS)
Arabshebani
et al. (2007)
Badgett
(1995)
2000 U.S. Census (5%
PUMS)
GSS 1989-1991
Badgett
(2001)
GSS & NHSLS
1989-1994
17% penalty for gay/bisexual
men.
Berg & Lien
(2002)
Black et al.
(2000)
Black et al.
(2003)
Blandford
(2003)
Carpenter
(2005)
GSS
1991-1996
1990 U.S. Census
(5% & 1% PUMS)
GSS
1989-1996
GSS & NHSLS
1991-1996
2001 California Health
Interview Survey; GSS
1988-2000
22% penalty for gay/bisexual
men.
10% to 32% penalty for gay
partnered men to married men.
13% to 19% penalty for gay men.
Carpenter
(2007)
Clain & Leppel
(2001)
1998-1994 NHANES III
Klawitter &
Flatt (1998)
1990 U.S. Census
(5% PUMS)
1990 U.S. Census
(1% PUMS)
14.4% penalty for gay unmarried
partnered men compared to
married heterosexual men; and
2.4% penalty compared to
unmarried partnered heterosexual
men.
9% penalty for gay men.
Men with male unmarried partners.
24% penalty for gay/bisexual
men.
At least as many same-sex as
different-sex sex partners since age
18.
At least as many same-sex as
different-sex sex partners since age
18.
Any same-sex sexual behavior in the
past five years.
Men with male unmarried partners.
30% to 32% penalty for gay and
bisexual men.
2% to 3% penalty for gay men
(not statistically significant) and
10% to 15% penalty for bisexual
men.
23% to 30% penalty for gay men.
22% penalty for men in same-sex
couples compared to men not
living with partners; and 16%
penalty (if college educated)
compared to married men.
13% to 31% penalty for male
same-sex couples.
Men with male unmarried partners
Various measures of same-sex sexual
behavior.
Various measures of same-sex sexual
behavior plus marital status
Self-reported gay, lesbian or bisexual
sexual orientation (CHIS); same-sex
partners in past five years (GSS).
Any same-sex sexual behavior.
Same-sex unmarried partners.
Men with male unmarried partners.
13
Comparing the wages of lesbians and heterosexual
women yields less consistent results. Only one
study, limited to the earliest GSS data, finds that
being a lesbian or bisexual woman affects wages
negatively, but that wage difference was
statistically insignificant (Badgett 1995).
All
subsequent studies show that lesbians do not earn
less than heterosexual women (Arabshebani et al.
2007; Badgett 2001; Berg and Lien 2002; Black et
al. 2003; Blandford 2003; Carpenter 2005; Clain
and Leppel 2001; Klawitter and Flatt 1998).
However, the studies’ conclusions vary on whether
lesbians earn more than heterosexual women.
The studies’ different results seem to depend on
their definitions of lesbianism (Badgett 2001; Black
et al. 2003). The studies that define sexual
orientation on the basis of recent same-sex
behavior (i.e., behavior within the past one to five
years) find that lesbians earn more than their
heterosexual counterparts, while studies of
behavior since age 18 find no earnings advantage
for lesbians (Black et al. 2003). Studies using
Census data on unmarried
Lesbians
partners in 1990 show no
consistently
statistically
significant
difference between earnings
earn less than
of lesbians and heterosexual
men, regardless
women who work full-time
of sexual
(Klawitter and Flatt 1998).
orientation
The
fact
that
lesbians
generally do not earn less
than heterosexual women does not imply the
absence of employment discrimination.
First,
lesbians might make different decisions than
heterosexual women since they are less likely to
marry men—who on average have higher wages—
or put their careers on hold to have children. As a
result, lesbians might invest in more training or
actual labor market experience than do
heterosexual women. This increase in “human
capital” may mask the effects of discrimination.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate out
those effects in existing data. Second, some
evidence suggests that women are less likely to
disclose their sexual orientation at work (Badgett
2001). Thus, the findings above might be different
had there been a way to measure these factors for
lesbians. With better controls, it is possible that
we would see that lesbians earn less than
heterosexual women with the same actual
experience.
Finally, we note that this kind of statistical method
has been used in studies of race and sex
discrimination to see if differences in other
important job outcomes also differ by group
membership.
In particular, economists and
sociologists have analyzed the probability of
receiving a promotion, of having a high status
occupation, of being employed, and of being
unemployed to see if members of stigmatized
groups experience a disadvantage. To date, we
know of only one such study related to sexual
orientation. In a study using Census 2000 data,
Arabshebani et al. (2007) found that gay men are
less likely to be employed than heterosexual men
after controlling for age, education, race, and
health status, but lesbians are more likely to be
employed than are heterosexual women.
However, the lesbian employment difference
probably resulted from choices made by
heterosexual women to withdraw from the labor
force rather than from employers favoring lesbians
for jobs.
14
Table 5: Employment and Income Data for Lesbian Women from Wage Analyses Studies
Survey
Data Source
Arabshebani
et al. (2007)
Badgett
(1995)
2000 U.S. Census
(5% PUMS)
1989-1991 GSS
Badgett
(2001)
1989-1994 GSS &
NHSLS
Berg & Lien
(2002)
Black et al.
(2003)
Blandford
(2003)
Carpenter
(2005)
1991-1996 pooled
GSS
1989-1996 GSS
Clain & Leppel
(2001)
1990 U.S. Census
(1% PUMS)
Klawitter &
Flatt (1998)
1990 U.S. Census
(5% PUMS)
1991-1996 pooled
GSS
2001 California
Health Interview
Survey
Wage Differential
LGB Definition
14% premium for lesbian
women.
18% less (evaluating the
interaction between GLB and
potential experience term at
mean – not statistically
significant).
11% premium for
lesbian/bisexual women (not
statistically significant).
30% premium for
lesbian/bisexual women.
6% to 27% premium for lesbian
women.
17% to 23% premium for
lesbian and bisexual women.
CHIS: 2.7% penalty (statistically
insignificant) for lesbians and
10.6% penalty for bisexual
women; GSS: 31% premium for
lesbians and 7% penalty for
bisexual women (not statistically
significant).
2.2% penalty compared to
women without partners or
spouses.
No statistically significant
difference for those working
full-time.
Women with female unmarried partners
At least as many same-sex partners as
different-sex sex partners since age 18.
At least as many same sex partners as
different-sex partners since age 18.
Any same-sex sexual behavior in the past
five years.
Various measures of same-sex sexual
behavior.
Various measures of same-sex sexual
behavior plus marital status
Self-reported gay, lesbian or bisexual
sexual orientation (CHIS); same-sex
partners in past five years (GSS).
Women with female unmarried partners
Women with female unmarried partners
15
Measuring the Effects of
Antidiscrimination Laws: A WageBased Approach
There have been very few attempts to measure
the effectiveness of sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws. Klawitter and Flatt (1998)
used Census data to compare wages of gays and
lesbians in various jurisdictions—some had sexual
orientation antidiscrimination laws while others did
not. After controlling for individual and location
characteristics, the study found no evidence of a
direct relationship between antidiscrimination laws
and average earnings for people in same-sex
couples or on the wage gap between partnered
gay men and married heterosexual men (Klawitter
and Flatt 1998).
Since many of the laws had not been in force for
very long when the 1990 Census was
administered, Klawitter and Flatt’s study does not
necessarily mean that antidiscrimination laws have
no effect. In addition, the laws’ positive effects
may not be quantifiable through wage analyses.
For example, the laws may make it easier for gays
and lesbians to come out at work, improve intraoffice dynamics, or help gays and lesbians to
achieve a greater sense of dignity.
Incomes of Transgender People
There have been no published studies to date like
those described above analyzing the wage
differences
between
Transgender people
transgender
and
nonreport high
transgender people. The most
unemployment
significant obstacle is the lack
of available data. The NHSLS,
rates and low
the GSS, and the United States
earnings, and 22%
Census do not ask questions
to 64% report
about gender identity, so
incomes of less
researchers cannot identify
than $25,000 per
transgender people.
year
However,
a
number
of
convenience samples of transgender people,
including some of those summarized in Table 3
above, indicate that large percentages of the
transgender population are unemployed and have
incomes far below the national average. Although
these surveys share the limitations described
above—overrepresentation of clients of AIDS
service organizations, other social service
organizations, people of color, and commercial sex
workers—the studies are consistent in their
findings.
In all, between 6% and 60% of
transgender people report being unemployed, and
22% to 64% report incomes of less than $25,000
per year (see Table 6).
16
Table 6: Employment and Income Data from Surveys of Transgender People
Survey
Year(s)
Data
Collected
Bockting et
al. (2005)
Clements K.
et al. (1999)
1997-2002
Lombardi et
al. (2001)
Kenagy (2005)
1996-1997
Kenagy and
Bostwick
(2005)
Minter and
Daley (2003)
2000-2001
1997
1997
Sample
Unemployment
Annual income
Transgender People in
Minnesota (n = 207)
MTFs and FTMS in San
Francisco (n = 515)
NA
22% below poverty line
19% of FTM
60% of MTF
(most common way of “obtain money in
past 6 months” was part- or full-time
employment for 40%)
6%
37% less than $25,000
Transgender people in
the U.S. (n = 402)
Transgender People in
Philadelphia (n = 81)
59%
(do not currently have an employer)
56% less than $15,000
Transgender People in
Chicago (n = 111)
34%
(do not currently have an employer)
40% less than 20,000
2002
Transgender people in
San Francisco (n = 155)
NA
64% less than $25,000
Reback et al.
(2001)
1998-1999
50%
50% less than $12,000
San Francisco
Bay Guardian
and
Transgender
Law Center
(2006)
2006
MTF Transsexuals in Los
Angeles County (n =
244)
Transgender people in
San Francisco (n = 194)
59% less than $15,300
Sykes (1999)
1998
35%
(defined as not included those on SSI or
SSDI, but include indicating
unemployment insurance, general
assistance, other source of income or no
income) (only 25% working FT and 16%
working PT)
28%
Xavier et al.
(2005)
1999-2000
35%
(of the sample over 19)
64% less than $15,000
(of the sample over 19)
Xavier et al.
(2007)
2005-2006
9%-24%
39% less than $17,000
Transsexuals in Northern
California (n = 232)
Transgender People of
Color in Washington,
D.C.
(n = 248)
Transgender People in
Virginia (N = 350)
NA
17
Controlled Experiments
Background
Researchers have looked for ways to assess more
directly whether discrimination exists.
In
controlled experiments, researchers compare
treatment of LGB people and treatment of
heterosexuals by manufacturing scenarios in which
research subjects interact with actual or
hypothetical people who are coded as gay or
straight. Those interactions are then observed and
analyzed for differences. For instance, in some
studies researchers distribute profiles of job
applicants (including résumés, photographs, and/or
other materials) to subjects.
Each profile is
controlled to reveal the applicant’s sexual
orientation. In other words, gay and non-gay
profiles are designed to be exactly the same,
except for the labeling of one or more job
applicants or customers as gay.
Therefore,
researchers can be confident that differential
treatment is motivated by discrimination.
Researchers then compare the rate of interview
offers and other outcomes that might differ by
sexual orientation if discrimination occurs.
This method is used extensively in studies of racial
housing discrimination and has been applied more
frequently in recent years in studies of racial
employment discrimination.
A review of the
academic literature found several controlled
experiments that assessed differential treatment
on the basis of sexual orientation. Most of these
experiments focus on differential treatment in
employment; two studies focused on public
accommodations.
Studies of Employment
A survey of the published literature on employment
discrimination found five audited experiments
which showed sexual orientation discrimination; a
sixth did not. Because each of the studies were
context-specific, they are difficult to compare.
The first known audit experiment was conducted
by Barry Adam (1981), who sent out two nearly
identical résumés from fictitious law students to
Ontario law firms. One résumé was coded as gay
by stating that the candidate was active in the
“Gay People’s Alliance.” The gay-coded candidate
received
fewer
interview
invitations.
Unfortunately, Adams did not test for statistical
significance, thus limiting the persuasiveness of his
report. And as discussed later, the measured
discrimination effect may have been skewed by
bias against social activists.
Following Adam’s study, Horvath and Ryan (2003)
conducted one of the three employment-focused
experiments conducted in the United States to
date. They designed résumés for
Experiments
a technical writer position. The
show consistent
résumés were then rated by
discrimination
undergraduate students—not by
actual
employers.
The
against gay and
demographics
of
the
lesbian
participants—77% of the 236
applicants
participants were white women—
were also not representative of the undergraduate
population or the larger U.S. population. The
students rated the heterosexual man the highest
(84.87 on a 100-point scale), followed by the
homosexual woman (80.76), the homosexual man
(80.38), and then the heterosexual woman (76.2)
(Horvath and Ryan 2003). Like the wage studies,
gay men and lesbians were disadvantaged relative
to heterosexual men, but lesbians were perceived
as more qualified than heterosexual women. The
small advantage for heterosexual men might have
resulted from the fact that college students show
less prejudice toward lesbians and gay men than
the general population.
Another study by economist Doris Weichselbaumer
(2003) found evidence of discrimination against
Austrian
lesbians
when
compared
with
heterosexual women. The study sent responses to
job ads in Austria for four applicants: a feminine
heterosexual woman, a masculine heterosexual
woman, a feminine lesbian, and a masculine
lesbian.
Conforming
to
local
practice,
Weichselbaumer included a photograph, school
transcript, reference letters, and a résumé for each
applicant. The femininity or masculinity of the
applicants was represented in the photographs and
in hobbies listed in the résumés. Lesbianism was
represented by a résumé listing of past managerial
experience within a gay organization.
Both
masculine and feminine lesbians received fewer
interview
invitations
than
heterosexuals
(Weichselbaumer 2003). There was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups of
18
lesbians, suggesting that even feminine lesbians
experience discrimination in the labor market.
The fourth experiment was conducted by Crow,
Fok, and Hartman (1988). Unlike the previous
experiments, this study measured bias but not
necessarily
discrimination.
Managers
and
supervisors in both private and public sector
industries of a southern U.S. city were asked to
select six out of eight candidates for a fictitious
accounting position. The researchers only gave
the subjects information on the candidates’ race,
sex, and sexual orientation, and the subjects were
told that all affirmative action guidelines had been
fulfilled, leaving them free to discriminate. In
other words, this study forced subjects to resort to
biases to determine which two candidates to
exclude. This experiment found that, regardless of
sex and race, homosexuals were less likely to be
selected than heterosexuals (Crow 1988).
In
contrast to wage analyses, this experiment showed
that white heterosexual women were the most
likely to be selected—more likely than white
homosexual women and even white heterosexual
men.
In a study published in 2002, Michelle Hebl and
colleagues sent eight male and eight female
undergraduate and graduate students to apply for
jobs at retail stores. The interactions were taped
by a concealed recording device. Half of the time
the confederates wore a baseball cap with the
words “Gay and Proud”; the other half of the time
the same confederates wore caps that read “Texan
and Proud.” The researchers analyzed measures
of “formal discrimination”:
job availability,
permission to complete a job application, job
callbacks, and permission to use the bathroom.
They also analyzed measures of “interpersonal
discrimination”: interaction duration, number of
words spoken during the interaction, negativity
perceived by the confederates, employer interest
perceived by the confederates, and employer
negativity perceived by reviewers of the recorded
tapes. The researchers found that, on average,
confederates wearing the gay cap did not suffer
from formal discrimination, perhaps because the
outcome measures captured only a few measures
available at the beginning of the job hiring process.
But the researchers did find that the gay-labeled
applicants
experienced
interpersonal
discrimination. Because all of the stores were in
the same mall area of a Texas city, this study’s
results may not be indicative of broader
discriminatory patterns (Hebl et al. 2002).
The sixth study, conducted by Van Hoye and
Lievens (2003) in Belgium, found no significant
signs of sexual orientation discrimination. The
researchers distributed candidate profiles to human
resource professionals in consultancy firms and
companies’ internal human resource departments.
The subjects were given extensive information on
both the candidates (personal data, education and
professional experience, and personality) as well as
an extensive job description (a description of the
company, a car parts manufacturer; the job title,
Human Resources Manager; the job contents,
knowledge, skills, and abilities required; and the
benefits offered by the company) (Van Hoye and
Lievens 2003).
The study found that sexual
orientation did not have a significant effect on
hiring rates.
There are some possible explanations why this
Belgian study found no discrimination, unlike the
other experimental studies. Commentators have
hypothesized that decision-makers are most likely
to resort to bias and stereotypes when they have
limited information regarding the job candidate
and/or the job opening (Van Hoye and Lievens
2003; Henry Tosi and Steven Einbender 1985; H.
Kristl Davison and Michael Burke 2000). Because
this study provided its subjects with so much
information—perhaps an unrealistic amount of
information—the subjects may have been less
inclined to resort to biases than usual. Another
explanation for the apparent lack of discrimination
is that human resource professionals are not
representative of other people who make
interviewing and hiring decisions, for example
hiring managers, and human resource managers
might be particularly attuned to laws forbidding
discrimination. Similarly, the fictitious job opening
was in the field of human resources, which again,
may not be representative of other fields. Finally,
the
geographic
location—Belgium—may
be
particularly hospitable to gay people; after all,
Belgium was the second country to legalize samesex marriage.
Studies of Public Accommodations
In a study published in 1996, Walters and Curran
sent three couples—male/male, female/female,
and female/male—and an observer to 20 retail
stores in an indoor mall (1996).
All couples
followed the same script, which directed them to
hold hands, smile at each other, and request help
from sales staff, etc.
The couples and the
observer found that, on average, retail staff waited
19
longer before helping female/female (4 min. 18
sec.) and male/male (3 min. 51 sec.) couples,
compared to female/male couples (1 min. 22 sec.)
(Walter and Curran 1996). In addition, retail staff
talked about the same-sex couples and subjected
them to staring, pointing, laughter, and rudeness.
When same-sex couples interacted with staff, the
above signals of negative feelings emerged 10% to
75% of the time (staff were rude to female/female
couples 10% of the time; staff stared at male/male
couples 75% of the time) (Walter and Curran
1996). None of the male/female couples were
subjected to any of those negative signals.
In a second study, Jones (1996) took the auditing
methodology and applied it to another public
accommodations context. He sent letters to 320
hotels around the country. The letters were signed
by either a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex
couple, who requested a room with one bed.
Jones found that same-sex couples received less
positive responses than opposite-sex couples; the
difference was statistically significant (Jones 1996).
Issues Related to Interpretation of
Results
While well-designed experiments have provided
convincing evidence of differential treatment of
LGB as compared with heterosexuals, controlled
experiments also have some limitations. They are
generally limited to a single context (such as entrylevel jobs or retail interactions) or geographic
location. They do not work well for studying
discrimination in some important contexts, such as
access to high status jobs that involve internal
hiring processes or the presence of relatively rare
skills or experience.
Furthermore, designing controlled experiments can
be difficult.
One particular challenge is
determining how to code the confederates’ sexual
orientation. Researchers use certain traits to code
confederates as either LGB or heterosexual.
However, those traits may be coded for more than
just sexual orientation. For example, a researcher
may choose to code a confederate as gay by
having him wear a pin reading “gay and proud.”
However, that pin may actually also indicate
political activism as well as sexual orientation, and
some subjects may discriminate on the basis of
political activism.
Therefore, the experimental studies provide
convincing evidence that sexual orientation
discrimination exists, but we cannot use these
studies to predict the likelihood of discrimination in
other contexts.
20
Conclusions
Overall, the existing research on sexual orientation discrimination provides consistent and compelling evidence
that discrimination against LGBT people exists:
•
•
•
•
•
LGBT individuals have reported experiences of discrimination based on their own sexual orientation and
gender identity, both to researchers and, in some cases, to enforcement agencies charged with
investigating claims of discrimination.
Heterosexual people have reported observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Wages of gay men are lower than wages of heterosexual men with the same personal and job
characteristics.
The best available data suggests that transgender people experience very high unemployment rates and
that large percentages have very low incomes.
Employers, sales clerks, and other observers have treated LGB job applicants or customers differently
from heterosexuals.
The wage studies and experiments also demonstrate that discrimination is not benign. Lower incomes and
difficulty in getting or keeping a job create direct disadvantages for LGBT people who have experienced
discrimination in the workplace.
21
References
Adam, Barry D. 1981. “Stigma and Employability: Discrimination by Sex and Sexual Orientation in the Ontario
Legal Profession.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 18(2): 216-221.
Allegretto, Sylvia A. and Michelle M. Arthur. 2001. “An Empirical Analysis of Homosexual/Heterosexual Male
Earnings Differentials: Unmarried and Unequal?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(3): 631-646.
APA Committee on the Status of Lesbians and Gays in the Profession. 1995. “Report on the Status of Lesbians
and Gays in the Political Science Profession.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28(3):561-572.
Arabshebani, G. Reza, Alan Marin and Jonathan Wadsworth. 2007. “Variations in Gay Pay in the USA and the
UK,” in M. V. Lee Badgett and Jefferson Frank, eds. Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International
Perspective. London: Routledge.
Author Unknown. 1997. Sexual-Orientation-Based Employment Discrimination: States’ Experience with
Statutory Prohibitions. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Badgett, Lee, Colleen Donnelly, and Jennifer Kibbe. 1992. Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination Against
Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Surveys Across the United States. Washington, DC: National Gay &
Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Badgett, M. V. Lee. 1995. “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination.” 49 Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 48(4): 726-739.
Badgett, Lee. 1997. “Vulnerability in the Workplace: Evidence of Anti-Gay Discrimination.” Angles: The Policy
Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies 2(1): 1-4.
Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2001. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2007. “Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Literature in
Economics and Beyond,” in M. V. Lee Badgett and Jefferson Frank, eds. Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
An International Perspective. London: Routledge.
Battle, Juan, Cathy J. Cohen, Dorian Warren, Gerard Fergerson, and Suzette Audam. 2002. Say It Loud I’m
Black and I’m Proud: Black Pride Survey 2000. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy
Institute. http://thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/SayItLoudBlackAndProud.pdf (accessed
January 2007).
Berg, Nathan and Donald Lien. 2002. “Measuring the Effect of Sexual Orientation on Income: Evidence of
Discrimination?” Contemporary Economic Policy 20(4): 394-414.
Black, Dan A., Gary J. Gates, Seth G. Sanders, and Lowell J. Taylor. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and
Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography
37(2): 139-154.
Black, Dan A., Hoda R. Makar, Seth G. Sanders, and Lowell J. Taylor. 2003. “The Effects of Sexual Orientation
on Earnings.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(3): 449-469.
Blandford, John M. 2003. “The Nexus of Sexual Orientation and Gender in the Determination of Earnings.”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(4): 622-642.
22
Bockting, Walter, Chiung-Yu Huang, Hua Ding, Beatrice Robinson, and Simon Rosser. 2005. “Are Transgender
Persons at Higher Risk for HIV Than Other Sexual Minorities? A Comparison of HIV Prevalence and
Risks.” International Journal of Transgenderism. 8(2/3): 123-131.
Carpenter, Christopher. 2005. “Self-Reported Sexual Orientation and Earnings: Evidence from California.”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 58(2): 258-273.
Carpenter, Christopher. 2007. “Revisiting the Income Penalty for Behaviorally Gay Men: Evidence from
NHANES III.” Labor Economics 14(1): 25-34.
Clain, Suzanne Heller and Karen Leppel. 2001. “An Investigation into Sexual Orientation Discrimination as an
Explanation for Wage Differences.” Applied Economics 33(1): 37-47.
Clements, Kristin, Mitchell Katz, and Rani Marx. 1999. The Transgender Community Health Project:
Prevalence of HIV Infection in Transgender Individuals in San Francisco. San Francisco: San Francisco
Department of Health. http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.461e (accessed April 2007).
Colvin, Roddrick. 2004. The Extent of Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Topeka, KS. New York: National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/TopekaDiscrimination.pdf (accessed January
2007).
Croteau, James M. and Julianne S. Lark. 1995. “On Being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual in Student Affairs: A
National Survey of Experiences on the Job.” NASPA Journal 32(3): 189-197.
Croteau, James M. 1996. “Research on the Work Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People: An
Integrative Review of Methodology and Findings.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 48(2): 195-209.
Crow, Stephen M., Lillian Y. Fok and Sandra J. Hartman. 1988. “Who is at Greatest Risk of Work-related
Discrimination—Women, Blacks, or Homosexuals?” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 11(1):
15-26.
Currah, Paisley and Shannon Minter. 2000. Transgender Equality: A Handbook for Activists and Policymakers.
San Francisco: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and National Center for Lesbian
Rights.
Davison, H. Kristl and Michael J. Burke. 2000. “Sex Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts: A
Meta-analytic Investigation.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 56: 225.
Dang, Alain and Mandy Hu. 2005. Asian Pacific American Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A
Community Portrait. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/APAstudy.pdf (accessed January 2007).
Dang, Alain and Cabrini Vianney. 2007. Living in the Margins: A National Survey of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy
Institute. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/API_LivingInTheMargins.pdf (accessed
May 2007).
Diaz, Rafael M., George Ayala, Edward Bein, Jeffe Henne and Barbara V. Marin. 2001. “The Impact of
Homophobia, Poverty, and Racism on the Mental Health of Gay and Bisexual Latino Men: Findings from 3
U.S. Cities.” American Journal of Public Health 91(6): 927-932.
Durkin Jennifer. 1998. “Queer Studies I: An Examination of the First Eleven Studies of Sexual Orientation Bias
by the Legal Profession.” UCLA Women’s Law Journal 8: 343-377.
23
Empire State Pride Agenda. 2001. Anti-Gay/Lesbian Discrimination in New York State. New York: Empire
State Pride Agenda. http://www.prideagenda.org/pdfs/survey.pdf (accessed January 2007).
Fox, Sarah D. 1999. Gender Expression as a Basis for Employment Discrimination in Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Populations. Columbus: National Transgender Advocacy Coalition.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817134208/www.ntac.org/ge01.html (accessed April 2007).
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, www.glaad.org.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, www.glsen.org.
Gross, Larry, Steven K. Aurand, and Rita Addessa. 2000. The 1999-2000 Study of Discrimination and Violence
Against Lesbian Women and Gay Men in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: The
Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force.
Hebl, Michelle R., Jessica Bigazzi Foster, Laura M. Mannix and John Dovidio. 2002. “Formal and Interpersonal
Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias Toward Homosexual Applicants.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 28(6): 815-825.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2001. Inside-OUT: A Report on the Experiences of Lesbians, Gays and
Bisexuals in America and the Public’s Views on Issues and Policies Related to Sexual Orientation. Menlo
Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/3193-index.cfm (accessed
January 2007).
Herek, Gregory M. 2007. “Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the
United States: Prevalence Estimates from a National Probability Sample.” Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, forthcoming.
Horvath, Michael and Ann Marie Ryan. 2003. “Antecedents and Potential Moderators of the Relationship
Between Attitudes and Hiring Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation.” Sex Roles 48(3/4): 115130.
Huebner, David M., Gregory M. Rebchook, and Susan M. Kegeles. 2004. “Experiences of Harassment,
Discrimination, and Violence Among Young Gay and Bisexual Men.” American Journal of Public Health
94(7): 1200-1203.
Jones, David A. 1996. “Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Hotel Reservation Policies,” in Daniel L.
Wardlow, ed. Gays, Lesbians, and Consumer Behavior: Theory, Practice and Research Issues in Marketing;
published simultaneously in Journal of Homosexuality 31(1/2): 153-159.
Karp, Bob. 1997. Gainesville/Alachua County Gay and Lesbian Community Survey. Florida: Human Rights
Council of North Central Florida. On file with the Williams Institute of Sexual Orientation Law and Public
Policy.
Kenagy, Gretchen P. 2005. “The Health and Social Service Needs of Transgender People in Philadelphia.”
International Journal of Transgenderism. 8(2/3): 49-56.
Kenagy, Gretchen P. and Wendy B. Bostwick. 2005. “Health and Social Service Needs of Transgender People in
Chicago.” International Journal of Transgenderism. 8(2/3): 57-66.
Klawitter, Marieka M. and Victor Flatt. 1998. “The Effects of State and Local Antidiscrimination Policies on
Earnings for Gays and Lesbians.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 658-686.
Lambda Legal and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. 2006. 2005 Workplace Fairness Survey.
http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/641.pdf.
24
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The Social Organization
of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in United States. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Letellier, Patrick. 2003. “Beyond He and She: A Transgender News Profile.” The Good Times, January 9.
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=584 (accessed April 2007).
Levine, Martin P. and Robin Leonard. 1984. “Discrimination against Lesbians in the Work Force.” Signs 9: 700710.
Lombardi, Emilia L., Riki A. Wilkins, Dana Priesing, Diana Malouf. 2001. “Gender Violence: Transgender
Experiences with Violence and Discrimination.” Journal of Homosexuality 42(1): 89-101.
Mandel, Joseph D. et al. 1994. Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Sexual Orientation Bias
Report on Sexual Orientation Bias. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Mays, Vickie and Susan Cochran. 2001. “Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination Among Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 91(11): 1869-1876.
Minter, Shannon and Christopher Daley. 2003. Trans Realities: A Legal Needs Assessment of San Francisco’s
Transgender Communities. San Francisco: National Center for Lesbian Rights and Transgender Law
Center.
New Jersey Supreme Court. 2001. Task Force on Sexual Orientation Issues: Final Report. Trenton:
Supreme Court of New Jersey, Task Force on Gay & Lesbian Issues.
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, Witeck-Combs Communications and Harris Interactive. 2003. Gays and
Lesbians Face Persistent Workplace Discrimination and Hostility Despite Improved Policies and Attitudes in
Corporate America. Rochester: HarrisInteractive.com.
Plotner, Beth, Miranda Stevens-Miller, Tina Wood-Sievers. 2002. 6th Report on Discrimination and Hate
Crimes Against Gender Variant People. Chicago: It’s Time, Illinois.
Reback, Cathy J., Paul A. Simon, Cathleen C. Bemis, and Bobby Gaston. 2001. The Los Angeles Transgender
Health Study: Community Report. Los Angeles: Authors.
Rebbe, James, Veronica Sandidge, and Richard Burkard. 2002. Sexual Orientation-Based Employment
Discrimination: States’ Experience with Statutory Prohibitions. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf (accessed April 2007).
Rubenstein, William B. 2002. “Do Gay Rights Laws Matter?: An Empirical Assessment.” Southern California
Law Review 75: 65-119.
San Francisco Bay Guardian and Transgender Law Center. 2006. Good Jobs NOW! A Snapshot of the
Economic Health of San Francisco’s Transgender Communities. San Francisco: Transgender Law Center
and Guardian.
Seattle Office for Civil Rights. 2006. Opinion Survey of a Small Sample of Participants at Pride 2006. Seattle:
Seattle Office of Civil Rights.
http://www.seattle.gov/scsm/documents/Pride06SexualOrient_Opinion_Survey_Final.doc (accessed April
2007).
State Bar of Arizona. 1999. Report to the Board of Governors from its Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Tuscon:
State Bar of Arizona.
25
State Bar of California. 2006. Challenges to Employment and the Practice of Law Facing Attorneys from
Diverse Backgrounds: Results from a 2005 Online Poll of California Attorneys. San Francisco: Center for
Access and Fairness, the State Bar of California.
Sugano, Eiko, Tooru Nemoto, and Don Operario. 2006. “The Impact of Exposure to Transphobia on HIV Risk
Behavior in a Sample of Transgender Women of Color in San Francisco.” AIDS and Behavior 10(2): 217225.
Sykes, Deanna L. 1999. “Transgender People: An Invisible Population.” California HIV/AIDS Update 12(1):16.
Task Force on Diversity in the Profession. 2005 Self-Audit for Gender and Minority Equity: A Research Study
of Minnesota Law Firms, Non-Firm Employers and Individual Lawyers. Minneapolis: Minnesota State Bar
Association. http://www2.mnbar.org/committees/DiversityTaskForce/Diversity%20Report%20Final.pdf
(accessed April 2007).
Tosi, Henry L. and Steven W. Einbender. 1985. “The Effects of the Type and Amount of Information in Sex
Discrimination Research: A Meta-Analysis.” Academy of Management Journal 28(3): 712-723.
Van Hoye, Greet and Filip Lievens. 2003. “The Effects of Sexual Orientation on Hirability Ratings: An
Experimental Study.” Journal of Business and Psychology 18(1) 15-30.
Walters, Andrew S., and Maria-Cristina Curran. 1996. ‘‘Excuse Me, Sir? May I Help You and Your Boyfriend?’’:
Salespersons’ Differential Treatment of Homosexual and Straight Customers.”
Weichselbaumer, Doris. 2003. “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring.” Labour Economics 10: 629-642.
Weldon, Stefanie and Dayna K. Shah. 2000. Sexual-Orientation-Based Employment Discrimination: States’
Experience with Statutory Prohibitions Since 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Federal_Legislation/Employment_NonDiscrimination_Act/Quick_Facts2/GAO_report04282000.pdf (accessed April 2007).
Wessler, Stephen. 2005. Discrimination Against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Individuals in Maine.
Portland: Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence.
Xavier, Jessica M. 2000. The Washington, DC. Transgender Needs Assessment Survey Final Report for Phase
Two. Washington, DC: Administration for HIV/AIDS of the District of Columbia. 2000.
http://www.gender.org/resources/dge/gea01011.pdf (accessed April 2007).
Xavier, Jessica M. and Ron Simmons. 2005. “A Needs Assessment of Transgender People of Color Living in
Washington, DC.” International Journal of Transgenderism 8(2/3): 31-47.
Xavier, Jessica M., Julie A. Hannold, Judith Bradford, and Ron Simmons. 2007. The Health, Health-related
Needs, and Lifecourse Experiences of Transgender Virginians. Richmond: Division of Disease Prevention
through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Virginia Department of Health.
26
Acknowledgements
We thank Darcy Pottle and Gary Gates for their help in preparing the report. The Williams Institute thanks the
Arcus Foundation, the Gill Foundation, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund for their general funding
support.
About the Authors
M.V. Lee Badgett is the Research Director at The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, and an associate
professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where she is also on the faculty of the
Center for Public Policy and Administration. She studies family policy and employment discrimination related to
sexual orientation.
Holning S. Lau is the Harvey S. Shipley Miller Law Teaching Fellow at The Williams Institute, UCLA School of
Law. He researches and writes on antidiscrimination law, international human rights, and children’s rights.
Brad Sears is the Executive Director of The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Prior to joining the UCLA
faculty, Professor Sears, a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School, was a lawyer representing people
with HIV disease in Los Angeles. In that capacity, he invented the "legal check-up Institute", a unique
lawyering effort to assess the legal needs of people with HIV. Professor Sears regularly publishes scholarly
articles on issues of gay law and HIV disease.
Deborah Ho is a Policy Fellow at The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
About the Institute
The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy is a research center at the UCLA
School of Law dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy. It advances law and public
policy through rigorous independent research and scholarship.
For more information, contact:
The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law
Box 951476
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
T (310)267-4382
F (310)825-7270
williamsinstitute@law.ucla.edu
www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute
27